On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:58:18AM -0800, Bill Moseley wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Dave Rolsky <auta...@urth.org> wrote: > > > > > But as you point out, what you did is just wrong anyway. The whole point > > of BUILD is that defining it in subclasses doesn't hide the parent's > > implementation. > > > > The only time you need modifiers on BUILD is when you want a role to > > modify BUILD. > > > > Hum, ok, so on a related question: > > What's the correct approach if you need to completely override a BUILD in a > base class with a replacement version in a subclass? That is you do not > want the baseclass BUILD to run?
In this case, you don't really want to be using BUILD at all, because running everything is basically the entire point of BUILD. Maybe your base class BUILD method should just call a separate init method, which your subclasses can override? -doy
